> IMO RFC 6164 although being very authoritative and direct about use of /127 > (from the same /64) on each p2p link is not giving us any insight into other > current (or future) reserved addresses that were explained in more detail in > RFC 5375 so in doing that RFC 6164 is raising doubts in our minds about using > /127 (from the same /64) for p2p router links and also there is no talk in > RFC 6164 about use of /128 loopbacks and what cautions are needed there - > whereas we saw that in RFC 5375 (although informational only) there was a > more comprehensive discussion around use of shorter length prefixes for p2p > links and loopbacks
*You* may feel that RFC 6164 is raising doubt. I don't. I'm glad to see an RFC that fills a needed hole, and clearly describes something which is already used by service providers (including my employer). Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sth...@nethelp.no -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
